[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

John has the meat of the issue in that the primary driver was the "Green Brigade" and the PETM advocates that drove governments to try to come up with a dodge to diffuse the Populist energy developing in the Evironmentalists. Here in the US it was the establishment of the EPA as a member of the Presidential Cabinet, and the creation of legislation to make changes in line with the agendas of the environmental groups. Certainly environmental groupz were frustrated, as change did not occur as fast as they desired; however, it could change and they had a voice, well until the conservatives and economics weakened all of their hard work.

In the UK it was much worse in that a voice was not established as a pilar of government. Hence, that which the US diffused came to fruitation there. Along with this was the issue of energy independence. Of course with North Sea oil it was possible to bridge the loss of the older coal energy resources. Mrs. Thacher; however, had realized that energy independence was on the wane and the UK needed an alternative. As our French neighbors were making a energy independence stand via nuclear power, it made sense to follow that path. At issue was the environmentalists were blocking each and every push for alternatives.

The best method for making changes is for you to put your opposition in a corner with few choices. (That is what G.W. Bush's plan was for drilling in the "North Slope" of Alaska, btw.) So given that it only made sense to give the world at large the choice, rising air pollution/climate change or nuclear waste issues. Then Blam!: Three Mile Island was eclipsed by Chernobyl, now the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan. At the same time, with the push to Natural Gas here in the US there are rising cases of CNG pipeline or home disasters.

The point, most decisions or actions are tied into defining a responsible path forward. A combination of engineering failures and disasters point out the worst of our current choices, we have to accept that with any choice there are consequences, the question is which ones are we willing to live with?

[andre]

Andy Mayhew, on 17 February 2012 - 12:46, said:

If you're happy for me to call you a "foam-flecked, cerebrally-deficient ... fruit loop" then I guess it's fine for Dellingpole to call people he knows nothing about the same But for the rest of us that's such a big ad hom we really don't need to read anything more he has to say. He's already lost whatever argument he might have had.

There are two problems here Andy, first no amount of name calling is going to change somebody being right or wrong. So would the falsification of that document would have to depend whether or not that blogger can't stay polite or not?

Second an ad hominem is a logical fallacy implying that there is a false reasoning in there. Something like "this guy has been caught, getting gas at an Exxon gas station, so he is a crook and hence he is wrong" That's an ad hominem, mentioning something completely irrelevant as proof for somebody to be wrong. Insults are not ad honimems.

[John Mason]

Insults do not help arguments, though, unless one is preaching to the converted about the ****** **** (fill in as per one's choice of insult) other side. In general they make a commentator look weak. It is fair to say that guys like Dellers are playing to an audience - it is a form of showbusiness as old as mankind!

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Andre,

By the same token, are you saying Ad Homs are not insults?

Both demonstrate the childishness behind the inability to be civil. Hopefully we are adults and can as adults spell out clearly why you may believe errors exist in an opposing pov.

As to a greenhouse effect, simply looking towards a night time sky with a 15um lidar for 30 years to establish a change in the optical depth is a start. Next follow the alternative heat flow pathways, convection and advection. Then look at the movement of advection, see if it is not moving to the point of minimal optical depth.

The science is only 15yrs old, but, the results are clear, though the cause maybe in dispute.

[Peter H]

andre, on 17 February 2012 - 12:29, said:

Would you please be so kind and point them out, substantiating why you think these are ad hominems?

Andre, would you please be so kind as to condemn Mr Delingpole's descriptions?

[Andy Mayhew]

andre, on 17 February 2012 - 14:14, said:

There are two problems here Andy, first no amount of name calling is going to change somebody being right or wrong. So would the falsification of that document would have to depend whether or not that blogger can't stay polite or not?

Second an ad hominem is a logical fallacy implying that there is a false reasoning in there. Something like "this guy has been caught, getting gas at an Exxon gas station, so he is a crook and hence he is wrong" That's an ad hominem, mentioning something completely irrelevant as proof for somebody to be wrong. Insults are not ad honimems.

An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it" . You asked for examples of the ad homs in the Dellingpole opinion piece and simply obliged but pointing out the most obvious one

But I don't think Dellingpole's (often ill-informed in my experience) opinion has much bearing on anything to do with climate at all, including the document under discussion.

[John Mason]

Or in Monckton's case, describing John Abraham as looking like an overcooked prawn! I never did fathom out what that had to do with the argument they were engaged upon. After all, it could backfire - imagine the headline: "Leading climate sceptic trounced by boiled crustacean!"

Cheers - John

[NileQueen]

John Mason, on 17 February 2012 - 16:27, said:

Or in Monckton's case, describing John Abraham as looking like an overcooked prawn! I never did fathom out what that had to do with the argument they were engaged upon. After all, it could backfire - imagine the headline: "Leading climate sceptic trounced by boiled crustacean!"

Cheers - John

Good one John, but in your dreams...

[John Mason]

I dunno, Jo - John did a pretty thorough job there if you ask me.... no name-calling either, just checking the facts.

Cheers - John

[John Mason]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 17:55, said:

I remember a time not so long ago, just before Climate Chat got closed actually - politics weren't allowed to be discussed when it came to AGW. Stick to the science or the thread will be frozen were the words.

What a difference a couple of years make.

As Vill would have said, LOL@Chris!

You have been doing politics this past 48 hours, as have LDC, Peter, Andre, Uskys, myself and diverse others!

Come now: what on Earth do you call it??????

Cheers - John

[Sam Jowett]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 17:59, said:

How can results about AGW be clear in such a short period. Are we really so vain as to suggest our presence, by way of a blip in the timeline of this planet, is sufficient to put climate change into some kind of context. it's ridiculous.

The results of how we impact climate are pretty well founded I think, but I agree with Chris that this needs to be considered in the context of the time we're having an effect and the level of impact we're capable of compared what the planet can do. In a few million years, any climate blip produced by us will probably be lost in the noise of "normal" climate fluctuation. Besides, a bit of warming can only be a good thing for the planet in the medium term (once we've adapted to it), because it will increase the habitable area and provide more food...

Not sure what else you're all on about RE: name calling etc... sounds a pointless and circular argument to me!

[Peter H]

Sam Jowett, on 17 February 2012 - 19:47, said:

The results of how we impact climate are pretty well founded I think, but I agree with Chris that this needs to be considered in the context of the time we're having an effect and the level of impact we're capable of compared what the planet can do. In a few million years, any climate blip produced by us will probably be lost in the noise of "normal" climate fluctuation. Besides, a bit of warming can only be a good thing for the planet in the medium term (once we've adapted to it), because it will increase the habitable area and provide more food...

Not sure what else you're all on about RE: name calling etc... sounds a pointless and circular argument to me!

Sam, we could shove all our sewage in rivers, not bother to run cars with catalytic converters, catch every fish in the sea, make countless species extinct and in a few million years that would all seem a blip. Indeed, I think we could nuke the Earth and in a few million years you'd not notice.

But I don't think it's much of an argument?

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 19:51, said:

Thank you Sam - I totally agree. It's all about perspective.

Humans are temporary visitors to this planet and we would do well to remember that.

??? We are part of a lineage that goes back to the very first life - surely? We share DNA with all species.

I'm not going to play god with this planet.

[Sam Jowett]

Evening Peter
Certainly not suggesting we rape our planet, or I've little doubt we'll shorten our stay here... but I think changes to climate rank amongst the lower priorities in terms of danger to our longevity...

[NileQueen]

Peter H, on 17 February 2012 - 22:33, said:

??? We are part of a lineage that goes back to the very first life - surely? We share DNA with all species.

Do you really share DNA with beetles or tulips?

Quote

I'm not going to play god with this planet.

It's a good thing you don't have those powers, Peter.

Yes where is Villardge?

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 17:59, said:

How can results about AGW be clear in such a short period. Are we really so vain as to suggest our presence, by way of a blip in the timeline of this planet, is sufficient to put climate change into some kind of context. it's ridiculous.

Hey Chris,

Not fair you left out my point about the optical depth in the 15um band. In short, it is clear that the optical depth facing out into space is less translucent and more opaque. (Note: We are not talking about light pollution blocking out the stars, or jet contrails either!)

The point is the effects are present, are measurable and accurately, no less. As I said the cause remains debateable, though many will suggest water vapor is the cause of global warming, whereas others that it is a feedback. Dr. Susan Solomon, of NOAA fame, had stated that in the troposphere it appeared that the water vapor content appears to be lower then several years back, while at the same time it appears that the Stratosphere water vapor content was increasing. This is a problem for scientist, as many models suggest warming of the atmosphere should increase water vapor in the troposphere.

All of this just goes to show we really do not have a clear signal as to root cause and effect are. (I had hoped n 2002, when NCAR had set up the lidar testing range in the US South West, they would have done experiment to hetrodyne CO2 to try to verify the density. (It was to be a simple experiment in which I had hoped that a satellite and ground station equipped wth lasers snd mirrors could pump up CO2 energy states to try to measure the resident altitude for the bulk of the CO2. (When the experiment then evolved in 2004, to using GPS and atmospheric sodium, well needless to say, I realized the opportunity was lost.)) However, that there is a change in atmospheric heat flow appears certain.

As to politics, as long as we are generally talkng about how it works in relation to climate change that is appropriate. The issue is when someone suggests that their pov is the only correct pov and their political interest says so. In that regard, it is science that must prove the point, not political affiliation, or economic theory..., does that help clarify the difference?